REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E004 OF 2026
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
LOBUK SIRAM ALIAS KISINI…..…………………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
1. The court has considered the submissions of the Accused person and those of the counsel for the State and also seen the contents of the Pre-Bail Report of Mulandi Purity, Probation Officer Samburu County that was dated and filed on 9 th April 2026.
2. It was evident that the victim’s family was still bitter and fearful of the Accused person and feared re-victimisation in the event he was released on bail. The victim’s parents had relocated their other children to Gatundu area in Kiambu County.
3. Notably, an accused person cannot be denied bail/bond due to speculation and bitter feelings of a victim’s family. An accused person has a constitutional right to be granted bail/bond according to Article 49(1)(g) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Indeed, an accused person ought to enjoy this right unless there are compelling reasons for this right to be curtailed.
4. In this particular case, the Accused person was a pastoralist. The Pre- Sentence Report indicated that he and his family moved frequently with their livestock in search of pasture. It was, therefore, clear that the Accused person had no fixed abode and that in the event of his absconding court, it would be difficult to trace him. It is important to point out that although the granting of bail/bond to an accused person was not pegged to nomadism as nomads too were entitled to their constitutional right of bail/bond, that right had to be considered side by side with other factors, which included a solid social support system, fixed abode, attitude of the community to an accused person and character of the accused person.
5. The court noted that the Accused person had a strained relationship with his family and none were prepared to stand surety for him. Although he had been granted bail/bond in CRCN No E52/20 and PCN 720/193/20 before the Senior Magistrates Court at Maralal, no one in his family stood surety for him despite the bail/bond being reviewed downwards. This reinforced the court’s belief that the Accused person did not have a supportive social structure to ensure his attendance in court.
6. Whereas the court considered his submissions that he lived far from where the victim’s family lived, he had not demonstrated that he had an alternative abode to stay while the trial was ongoing. Currently, the local community was hostile to him. There were threats of him being attacked by the said community if he was released on bail/bond.
7. For the sake of his own security, this court was persuaded by the Prosecution’s submissions, which had been backed by a detailed Social Inquiry Report of the Probation Office, that it would be in the best interests of justice not to grant the Accused person bail/bond at this time until such time that the environment on the ground had ceased to be hostile.
DISPOSITION
8. Accordingly, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be and is hereby declined.
9. For the avoidance of doubt, the Accused person be and is hereby at liberty to file a fresh application for bail/bond for consideration by the court at a later date.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at MARALAL this 21 st day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCRC NO E003 OF 20261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CRIMINAL CASE NO E004 OF 2026
REPUBLIC
VERSUS
LOBUK SIRAM ALIAS KISINI…..…………………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
1. The court has considered the submissions of the Accused person and those of the counsel for the State and also seen the contents of the Pre-Bail Report of Mulandi Purity, Probation Officer Samburu County that was dated and filed on 9 th April 2026.
2. It was evident that the victim’s family was still bitter and fearful of the Accused person and feared re-victimisation in the event he was released on bail. The victim’s parents had relocated their other children to Gatundu area in Kiambu County.
3. Notably, an accused person cannot be denied bail/bond due to speculation and bitter feelings of a victim’s family. An accused person has a constitutional right to be granted bail/bond according to Article 49(1)(g) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Indeed, an accused person ought to enjoy this right unless there are compelling reasons for this right to be curtailed.
4. In this particular case, the Accused person was a pastoralist. The Pre- Sentence Report indicated that he and his family moved frequently with their livestock in search of pasture. It was, therefore, clear that the Accused person had no fixed abode and that in the event of his absconding court, it would be difficult to trace him. It is important to point out that although the granting of bail/bond to an accused person was not pegged to nomadism as nomads too were entitled to their constitutional right of bail/bond, that right had to be considered side by side with other factors, which included a solid social support system, fixed abode, attitude of the community to an accused person and character of the accused person.
5. The court noted that the Accused person had a strained relationship with his family and none were prepared to stand surety for him. Although he had been granted bail/bond in CRCN No E52/20 and PCN 720/193/20 before the Senior Magistrates Court at Maralal, no one in his family stood surety for him despite the bail/bond being reviewed downwards. This reinforced the court’s belief that the Accused person did not have a supportive social structure to ensure his attendance in court.
6. Whereas the court considered his submissions that he lived far from where the victim’s family lived, he had not demonstrated that he had an alternative abode to stay while the trial was ongoing. Currently, the local community was hostile to him. There were threats of him being attacked by the said community if he was released on bail/bond.
7. For the sake of his own security, this court was persuaded by the Prosecution’s submissions, which had been backed by a detailed Social Inquiry Report of the Probation Office, that it would be in the best interests of justice not to grant the Accused person bail/bond at this time until such time that the environment on the ground had ceased to be hostile.
DISPOSITION
8. Accordingly, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Accused person’s application for bail/bond be and is hereby declined.
9. For the avoidance of doubt, the Accused person be and is hereby at liberty to file a fresh application for bail/bond for consideration by the court at a later date.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at MARALAL this 21 st day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCRC NO E003 OF 20261